2 ms·

I generally agree, although paying for things still doesn't prevent companies from tracking us, selling our data or advertising to us. The additional income str

by nicbou 4y ago

I generally agree, although paying for things still doesn't prevent companies from tracking us, selling our data or advertising to us. The additional income stream is hard to resist. Another thing: if you won't pay for something, consider sending the creator a few words of praise. It might not pay the bills, but it feels damn good to be on the receiving end of kind words. My business model allows me to give everything away for free without compromising on ethics. However, it's the positive feedback that really makes me want to continue on this path. The occasional "thank you" email never fails to make me smile. I've since learned to praise everyone whose work I use or enjoy.

shafyy 4y ago
> I generally agree, although paying for things still doesn't prevent companies from tracking us, selling our data or advertising to us. The additional income stream is hard to resist. Sure, but it better aligns their economic interests with the users' interests. Not perfect, but better.
fonix232 4y ago
The recent Apple fiasco about introducing ads into iOS shows how true your statement is. It doesn't matter (apparently) that you paid £1500 for a brand new spanking phone, Apple will still want to milk you for money, even though they made about 50% pure profit on that single sale. A very apt comparison would be blackmail - you'd think that paying the blackmailers their demand would sort things out, simple transaction, I pay you, you get rid of the compromising material (or w/e they're blackmailing you with). Except no, you paying them just stokes the fire, because they see they can make more money off of you, so they'll come around again, demanding payment. You lost out on paying the first demand, and literally nothing changed. Same goes for paid services. You'd think that switching from a free service structure (where your data is being sold to support the upkeep of the service), to something paid, would mean that they don't sell your data anymore, right? Well, why on Earth would they NOT sell your data when they can make money off of it? Most companies, especially VC-funded ones, won't care about long term. You can always rope in users with flashy new stuff, discounts, promotions, and users are not likely to leave, even if you push them to the edge of acceptability of abuse (here, I'm considering sale of your private data, especially if you're a paying customer, abuse), simply because it's more comfortable to just accept it rather than try to find another service that fits your needs, move all your stuff over, etc. - plus, there's no guarantee that this new service won't change business practices in the future and start selling your data (or abuse your customership in a different way). This is why the whole pro-capitalist argument "well just pay for it and they won't sell your data" is bollocks. In a capitalist market, there's absolutely no incentive for a company to stop making as much profit off your back as they can. There's no incentive to "provide a fair service for a fair price", but there's LOTS of incentive to "provide bare minimum services at the highest price a majority of the customers are willing to pay, one way or the other". The only way to fix this is via regulations, but that stifles "innovation" (and by "innovation" I mean the padding of the pockets of the investors).
jqpabc123 4y ago
I generally agree, although paying for things still doesn't prevent companies from tracking us, selling our data or advertising to us. If you don't give up your personal data, they won't have anything to sell. Enabling users to subscribe without personal data is part of the idea behind Web3.
- t-3 4y ago
  User-supplied data isn't necessary for tracking and advertising, just more convenient. Obfuscatory methods can stymie this to a degree, but the average person neither understands nor wants to deal with those. Common tracking methods like tracking pixels and share buttons can be avoided at the client level, but the most popular clients have begun to use side channels to evade DNS-based blocking (with which one can protect many), while browser extensions are again not understood or used widely. Networking is simply an inherently unprivate activity, there is no way to talk to an endpoint without that endpoint being able to know something about the other side. There is no way to prevent the middle-men who route the messages from knowing where it came from and where it's going, and if the same entity has control or visibility into a large enough portion of the network, to identify the endpoints.
  - jqpabc123 4y ago
    User-supplied data isn't necessary for tracking and advertising, just more convenient And more valuable. Data brokers don't pay much for data that can't be tagged to an individual. This is why professional privacy invaders love SMS 2FA ---it reliably identifies the individual with very little effort required. It's privacy invasion in the name of security.

by nicbou 4y ago

shafyy 4y ago

> I generally agree, although paying for things still doesn't prevent companies from tracking us, selling our data or advertising to us. The additional income stream is hard to resist. Sure, but it better aligns their economic interests with the users' interests. Not perfect, but better.

fonix232 4y ago

The recent Apple fiasco about introducing ads into iOS shows how true your statement is. It doesn't matter (apparently) that you paid £1500 for a brand new spanking phone, Apple will still want to milk you for money, even though they made about 50% pure profit on that single sale. A very apt comparison would be blackmail - you'd think that paying the blackmailers their demand would sort things out, simple transaction, I pay you, you get rid of the compromising material (or w/e they're blackmailing you with). Except no, you paying them just stokes the fire, because they see they can make more money off of you, so they'll come around again, demanding payment. You lost out on paying the first demand, and literally nothing changed. Same goes for paid services. You'd think that switching from a free service structure (where your data is being sold to support the upkeep of the service), to something paid, would mean that they don't sell your data anymore, right? Well, why on Earth would they NOT sell your data when they can make money off of it? Most companies, especially VC-funded ones, won't care about long term. You can always rope in users with flashy new stuff, discounts, promotions, and users are not likely to leave, even if you push them to the edge of acceptability of abuse (here, I'm considering sale of your private data, especially if you're a paying customer, abuse), simply because it's more comfortable to just accept it rather than try to find another service that fits your needs, move all your stuff over, etc. - plus, there's no guarantee that this new service won't change business practices in the future and start selling your data (or abuse your customership in a different way). This is why the whole pro-capitalist argument "well just pay for it and they won't sell your data" is bollocks. In a capitalist market, there's absolutely no incentive for a company to stop making as much profit off your back as they can. There's no incentive to "provide a fair service for a fair price", but there's LOTS of incentive to "provide bare minimum services at the highest price a majority of the customers are willing to pay, one way or the other". The only way to fix this is via regulations, but that stifles "innovation" (and by "innovation" I mean the padding of the pockets of the investors).

jqpabc123 4y ago

I generally agree, although paying for things still doesn't prevent companies from tracking us, selling our data or advertising to us. If you don't give up your personal data, they won't have anything to sell. Enabling users to subscribe without personal data is part of the idea behind Web3.

t-3 4y ago
User-supplied data isn't necessary for tracking and advertising, just more convenient. Obfuscatory methods can stymie this to a degree, but the average person neither understands nor wants to deal with those. Common tracking methods like tracking pixels and share buttons can be avoided at the client level, but the most popular clients have begun to use side channels to evade DNS-based blocking (with which one can protect many), while browser extensions are again not understood or used widely. Networking is simply an inherently unprivate activity, there is no way to talk to an endpoint without that endpoint being able to know something about the other side. There is no way to prevent the middle-men who route the messages from knowing where it came from and where it's going, and if the same entity has control or visibility into a large enough portion of the network, to identify the endpoints.
- jqpabc123 4y ago
  User-supplied data isn't necessary for tracking and advertising, just more convenient And more valuable. Data brokers don't pay much for data that can't be tagged to an individual. This is why professional privacy invaders love SMS 2FA ---it reliably identifies the individual with very little effort required. It's privacy invasion in the name of security.